Summar

[yossi]

IMHO, shooting a Summar with a digital camera and post processing heavily would easily turn the Summar image to look like a very different one. With films, the Summar's intrinsic charecteristics could be better preserved and evaluated (although the film used could also influence the look of the final image, but to a much lesser extent cf. digital manipulation.)

 

[brusby]

[/B]

I was surprised, too, when I saw how sharp and saturated these shots are. Whenever someone posts Summar shots, one gets ready to see flare, glow, and softness. But then I realized that if the Summar were really a dog, Leitz would never have made it! Apparently its only weaknesses--when new--were flare in backlight, and, I imagine, some softness at full aperture. Apparently, the "glow" is an artifact of the haze that develops over time, and not (as Brusby has shown us) an inherent weakness of the Summar's design!

Rob, I approached this from almost the same perspective I think you and many others had -- with the assumption that Summar lenses are just very soft with plenty of glow and flare. Almost every example I'd seen on the net, with a few notable exceptions, seemed pretty uninspiring, at least from a technical, optical point of view.

I might have gone forever without trying this lens, but I was given a super cloudy example by a good friend. I think my friend assumed it would only be useful as an effect piece for making very soft, dreamy images. But for me it was too soft and almost completely unusable, so I took it apart and cleaned it up the best I could. Luckily the glass surfaces were pretty free of scratches and abrasions.

After it was cleaned up, and I was able to do a few test shots with it, I was frankly a bit shocked and amazed by the image quality this inexpensive old, uncoated lens is capable of producing.

For anyone who is interested, the digital processing I did on the images posted at the start of this thread was limited to setting black and white points, the saturation level and overall level (brightness). That's it. I suppose some might criticize that as "heavy" processing, but I believe it's just proper image management -- or at least one very commonly accepted way, if not THE most common way, of handling images in both the analog and digital realms by both amateurs and professionals.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

(Somehow the connection between me and RFf manages to bring down the sharpness of my photos. That's very irritating, but maybe only the image that I get back on my screen is affected and the image that others see is just good.)

Erik.

 

[lukx]

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

(Somehow the connection between me and RFf manages to bring down the sharpness of my photos. That's very irritating, but maybe only the image that I get back on my screen is affected and the image that others see is just good.)

Erik.

I think RFF has some image optimization algorithm running in order to save storage space on the server. The image looks quite washed on my screen as well, even when I enhance it by clicking on it. You can tell that the image was crushed by how pixelated the gradient of the shadows on the right is displayed. The file I see here is 153.8 KB in size, how large is the image file that you uploaded, in comparison?

Anyway, nice image, as always, Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thank you, around 2 MB. That will be the problem I guess. I'm trying to get the images on Flickr better (less pixel grain) so I am experimenting with larger files. I guess I have to make smaller files for posting on RFf. Thanks again for this information.

Erik.

 

[Coldkennels]

Thank you, around 2 MB. That will be the problem I guess. I'm trying to get the images on Flickr better (less pixel grain) so I am experimenting with larger files. I guess I have to make smaller files for posting on RFf. Thanks again for this information.

I output from Lightroom at 1200 x 1800 px, 72dpi, producing around a 1.2MB file. That seems to be a good sweet spot for most internet use, in my experience.

Part of the problem will be that if you have a file that's simply too large (in terms of dimensions, not file size), it'll have to be resized to display anywhere. Some systems and software will handle that better than others. In an ideal world, you'd upload something at exactly the size it'll be displayed at, but with the sheer amount of different display resolutions in the world now, that's a bit harder to do.

I almost miss the days when everything was a 680 x 480 display. Made life a lot easier.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

Erik.

 

[yossi]

Talking about post processing (reads digital manipulation).
The difference between these two Summar images is just one click, BUT..
I wouldn't tell people that my Summar lens is sooo sharp and contrasty that I'm shocked 😉

 

[lxmike]

You have just got to love the Summar, a great lens, reflected very well in this thread

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

Erik.

 

[Coldkennels]

Talking about post processing (reads digital manipulation).
The difference between these two Summar images is just one click, BUT..
I wouldn't tell people that my Summar lens is sooo sharp and contrasty that I'm shocked 😉

To be honest, I understand the sentiment. I know from using my Summar on Fuji X cameras that it's low contrast compared to a modern lens. The thing is... I've found films - mostly old-style ones that look like early panchromatic films - that work incredibly well with it. On those film stocks, the relatively low-contrast Summar just works. It's not even a case of digital manipulation after scanning - I recently dug out my darkroom gear again and did some wet printing, and printed Summar images "straight" with no filtration or split-grade shenanigans onto multigrade paper, and they just looked fantastic.

Here's one on Pan F, for example:



(Hang on... "gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) Leotax T2L Elite"... am I doing this right, Erik van Straten?)

Good tonality, deep black, rich contrast range... just bloody lovely. This scan is exactly as it printed - no tinkering "in post", either in the darkroom or in photoshop. Just a straight print (no filter) onto Ilford Multigrade RC with a satin finish.

But you do need a clean Summar. Here's one printed with no contrast bump - from the exact same lens! - on Fomapan 400...



The negative isn't particularly thin, and the film isn't underexposed - the difference is this was before I cleaned the Summar. I hadn't really used the lens in four or five years, and I didn't realise how much grime and haze had built up on it over the years. I shot two rolls and wondered why they were flat, lifeless and dull with wild "glow" on the highlights before I realised what was wrong. I could definitely print this much better if I was willing to put in the work - I only did this as a quick test print, and didn't want to burn through paper getting it dialled in - but it's valuable to show what a difference just thoroughly cleaning a Summar can make.

 

[Erik van Straten]

it's valuable to show what a difference just thoroughly cleaning a Summar can make.

Yes, I've said this many times. A scratched, uncoated Summar full of grime is hopeless. The lens must be coated and clean and then, with a fine technique like yours, a Summar can shine.

Great pictures, Coldkennels!

Erik.

 

[yossi]

To be honest, I understand the sentiment. I know from using my Summar on Fuji X cameras that it's low contrast compared to a modern lens. The thing is... I've found films - mostly old-style ones that look like early panchromatic films - that work incredibly well with it. On those film stocks, the relatively low-contrast Summar just works. It's not even a case of digital manipulation after scanning - I recently dug out my darkroom gear again and did some wet printing, and printed Summar images "straight" with no filtration or split-grade shenanigans onto multigrade paper, and they just looked fantastic.
...

Don't get me wrong. Of course the Summar is a great lens, capable of producing sharp and smooth pictures as evident in so many examples here and elsewhere on the net. My point is: it has its unique signature/look which is very different from a pin-sharp, high acutance and contrasty lens (example a tessar lens on a Rollei 35 @f11).

See a quote from our Head Bartender's site:


I believe most would agree with the quote (except the "dirt cheap" part 🙂)

"It's a real thing!" (real is the key word.)

 

[Coldkennels]

See a quote from our Head Bartender's site:

I don't think that quote's fair at all. It's not often I call out Mr Gandy on this sort of thing, but... actually... I'm going to go so far as to call that one bullshit.

The problem is most people have only used dirty, hazy and/or scratched Summars. We're dealing with a 90 year old lens here - and a lens that was basically discarded once the Summicron came out (if not earlier). The internet consensus on it - including the quote above - is based on false information and bad samples. I regularly use mine at f/2 and, while it exhibits crazy swirly "bokeh", it is far from a "semi-soft focus effect".

This was one of the first photos I took with mine some years ago - so it wasn't even particularly clean, just unscratched - and I see nothing to complain about other than the haze-created glow:



After cleaning, that glow around the highlights is gone, and you're left with a very well-performing lens:



Now, is it as eye-gougingly sharp as a modern ASPH 'Cron? No, of course not.

Is it still capable of resolving a shocking amount of detail when in good condition and used properly? Very much yes.

And do the photos taken with it look bloody great? Well, I've barely touched my Summicron in the eight years I've owned this Summar, so that's got to say something for it.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll

Erik.

 

[Beemermark]

I had a number of Summars long, long ago. Found the results to be very disappointing. But back in the day I was probably buying what I could afford, which means lenses with heavily scratched front elements and lot's of haze. what amazes me is that a pre-war lens can deliver results as good as latest >$10K lens today. People put too much into resolution / contrast as opposed to what makes a great picture.

 

[yossi]

Expired ARISTA Premium 400. Summar @f8 probably.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I'd like to know more about vignetting with this lens, wide open. How would you describe it (slight / moderate / heavy)? By what f-stop is it more or less gone? How does it compare to a standard Elmar 5cm 3.5, when it comes to vignetting? thanx